Looking Past 2016: Middle East & North Africa in U.S. Foreign Policy
Secretary of State Kerry and Senator McCain chat with members of the Saudi royal family.
Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both advocated for re-examining the United States’ approach towards the Middle East and North Africa. The contrast between their policies highlights the growing divide in the United States over how to engage with a region that has traditionally proven problematic for American foreign policy.
Military Interventions: Libya and Syria
Trump is skeptical of U.S. military interventions abroad, and he has staunchly criticized the Iraq War. He also condemns NATO’s 2011 intervention in the Libyan Civil War, which occurred during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Trumpargued, "You can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there - it's a mess - if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there - it's a mess - [Syria is] going to be same thing."
Clinton, on the other hand, has often advocated for a policy of interventionism in the Middle East, both during her time as Secretary of State and in her current campaign. She actively campaigned for Western military action in Libya against the Qaddafi regime, and worked to rally an international coalition to implement a no-fly zone. Her stance on intervention has not changed, even in light of Libya’s current instability. Clinton’s policy proposals for Syria include an expansion of U.S. strikes in Syria and increased humanitarian efforts. Most controversially, Clinton has enumerated a plan to implement a no-fly zone in Syria. Critics argue that doing so will threaten Syrian lives, and could result in an escalation of conflict between the U.S., Russia, and the Assad regime. Russian or Syrian planes that fly in defiance of a no-fly zone would be shot down, and both nations, especially Russia, might respond violently towards U.S. forces protecting the zone.
International Agreements: Saudi Arabia and Iran
Trump believes that the United States should re-examine defense deals with its allies in order to save money. Hesaid, “We protect some of the wealthiest countries in the world, Saudi Arabia. We protect everybody. We protect everybody and we don’t get reimbursement. [...] We lose on everything, so we’re going to negotiate and renegotiate trade deals, military deals, many other deals that’s going to get the cost down for running our country very significantly.”Trump specifically discussed longtime U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. The Saudis “make a billion dollars a day. We protect them. So we need help. We are losing a tremendous amount of money on a yearly basis and we owe $19 trillion,” hesaid.
Trump has staunchly criticized the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, calling it “ridiculous” and “not well negotiated.” However, he has also implied that he will not revoke the deal. “I’ve heard a lot of people say, ‘We’re going to rip up the deal.’ It’s very tough to do when you say, ‘Rip up a deal,’” Trump said, arguing that it is pointless to revoke the deal because “they will have already received the $150 billion” by the time he would take office.
In speeches following the shooting at an Orlando club, Clinton criticized Saudi Arabia and called on the nation to prevent its citizens from funding international terrorist groups. However, the Saudi government has been a generous contributor to the Clinton Foundation, a charitable foundation whose international work has been largely led by former President Bill Clinton. In fact, the Saudi kingdom has donated upwards of $10 million to the Foundation. In general, Hillary Clinton has viewed Saudi Arabia as a crucial ally to maintain American influence in Syria, Iran, and Iraq.
Clinton, who was at the helm of the State Department when negotiations began over Iran’s nuclear program, has been supportive of the deal reached in 2015. However, she has emphasized that more sanctions may be necessary if Iran falls out of line. In a campaign briefing, she states, “I will vigorously enforce the nuclear deal as part of a comprehensive strategy that confronts all of Iran’s negative actions in the region and stand side-by-side with our ally Israel and our Arab partners.”
Regime Change and Stability: Iraq and Egypt
Trump disapproves of U.S. interventions aimed at replacing dictatorships with democracies, and he prioritizes regional and domestic stability over democratic reforms. As a staunch critic of the Iraq War, Trump believes that the United States destabilized the region when it deposed the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. He also argues that dictators can control terrorism. “You know, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but one thing about him: he killed terrorists,” Trumpsaid.
In contrast, Clinton has ultimately shown more willingness to advocate and support the transition from autocratic to democratic regimes in the Middle East and North Africa. Although Clinton, as Secretary of State, first helped to scaffold the Mubarak regime in Egypt during the Arab Spring revolutions, she has since embraced Egypt’s attempts to establish a functioning democracy, and has emphasized the necessity of free and fair elections.
ISIS: Iraq and Syria
“ISIS will be gone if I’m elected president. And they’ll be gone quickly,” Trump claims. He proposes “soundly and quickly defeating ISIS” by crafting a strategy based on the advice of the generals of the U.S. Armed Forces. Moreover, he argues that the United States “must as a nation be more unpredictable” and thus claims that releasing his plan to the public would only aid ISIS.
Clinton’s plan to fight ISIS centers on actions in the Middle East, throughout the rest of the world, especially Europe, and at home in the United States. In addition to increasing force against ISIS infrastructure, Clinton has also promised to augment support for local Arab and Kurdish forces. To combat the terrorist group’s internationalization, she plans to encourage technology companies to develop methods to combat online jihadist propaganda. Her policy proposal also includes an increased emphasis on intelligence both between European and American agencies and domestic agencies.
The election has also changed the tone of American discussion about the region. Trump describes what he calls radical Islamic terrorism as a distinct ideological threat to the United States. In a recent speech, Trump said, “In the twentieth century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and Communism. Now, a different threat challenges our world: Radical Islamic terrorism.” In order to face this threat, he called for the United States to ban all Muslims from entering the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what’s going on.” Thus, Trump calls for a full re-examination of the United States’ approach toward Islamic fundamentalism. Clinton, on the other hand, has shared President Obama’s unwillingness to demonize Muslims and blame Islam for terrorist actions of groups such as the Islamic State. She plans to accept approximately 65,000 refugees, and has harshly criticized Trump for his proposals of a religious litmus test for entry.
Regardless of tone or approach, Clinton and Trump have set very different policy priorities towards the Middle East and North Africa. This election will be a momentous one, and either candidate is likely to enact a new policy in MENA that will not follow in the same tradition as President Obama.
This article is part of a special Caravel series about how foreign policy proposals by the US presidential nominees will affect the regions that make up our sections. Foreign policy implications for other sections are available below: